Gun Control Debate

[TheBoberton]

Yes. Note that all of those weapons are semi-automatic, and the only thing that makes them any different from what you view as a hunting weapon is cosmetic design.

P.S. That's a used AT4. A disposable rocket system, that cannot be reloaded. It is just a bloody tube. It was likely taken home as a souvenir from someone's training, or perhaps from a deployment overseas.

[Aimedaxis]

To be honest outlawed guns would be a brilliant idea, as I know that in Britain here, the only gun crime you get here is nearly non-existant, and before any smart asses try to prove me wrong, I do know about the gun sprees there were a few years ago, but they were mainly due to a fault with the poilce or whatever, basically what I'm saying is if america chooses to go as strict as Britain, you would see far fewer massacres and therefore less crime.

[Karth]

To be honest outlawed guns would be a brilliant idea, as I know that in Britain here, the only gun crime you get here is nearly non-existant, and before any smart asses try to prove me wrong, I do know about the gun sprees there were a few years ago, but they were mainly due to a fault with the poilce or whatever, basically what I'm saying is if america chooses to go as strict as Britain, you would see far fewer massacres and therefore less crime.

+1 same with Japan and Australia

[Svensson]

Remove guns from civilians+ add security guards with firearms at schools/malls/any other place an insane person may strike.

Thats literally disgusting having a guard check you out. They are having more at school and quite frankly, they are humans too, they might make a mistake, and even in the Connecticut shooting, the killer shot his way to a window.

Guns were put in the U.S. to protect freedoms. The founding fathers knew what a tyrant could do and with the armed people, you have a chance of rebellion. I'm fully for people, who are not criminals, or have some mental issue, to own guns. And should not be restricted to own guns. This is because people died to gain our freedom, and later to protect it to keep us safe, so what, just throw away those lives and have them die for nothing once we throw away our freedoms? Unarmed civilians will basically allow the government to steam roll us into whatever they want. No chance of a large, harmful rebellion. 

@Boberton you seem to have this air of supremacy over everyone. I find your comparison of cars to guns laughable. I don't think you understand: guns are designed to kill things.

True. Guns were made to kill things. But look at how many car crashes kill people. 32,367 died in car relating incidents in 2011! Surely we should ban cars if we are going to ban guns. WAY too many people die.

The difference is that cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.

[Pinball Wizard]

Remove guns from civilians+ add security guards with firearms at schools/malls/any other place an insane person may strike.

Thats literally disgusting having a guard check you out. They are having more at school and quite frankly, they are humans too, they might make a mistake, and even in the Connecticut shooting, the killer shot his way to a window.

Guns were put in the U.S. to protect freedoms. The founding fathers knew what a tyrant could do and with the armed people, you have a chance of rebellion. I'm fully for people, who are not criminals, or have some mental issue, to own guns. And should not be restricted to own guns. This is because people died to gain our freedom, and later to protect it to keep us safe, so what, just throw away those lives and have them die for nothing once we throw away our freedoms? Unarmed civilians will basically allow the government to steam roll us into whatever they want. No chance of a large, harmful rebellion. 

@Boberton you seem to have this air of supremacy over everyone. I find your comparison of cars to guns laughable. I don't think you understand: guns are designed to kill things.

True. Guns were made to kill things. But look at how many car crashes kill people. 32,367 died in car relating incidents in 2011! Surely we should ban cars if we are going to ban guns. WAY too many people die.

The difference is that cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.

But surely cars had killed more people? On the news there was a horrible car crash that the other driver planned to kill the person!

@PinballWizard Having a guard check you out? are you serious..security guards kind of protect people? atleast in europe I dont know if they are rapists in the US. People died to gain your freedom, they didnt die for you to gain arms..they died so you could become independent from brittain. But oh well as long as guns circulate the states there will be mass murderers etc.  Also..ban cars really?

But having the guards around takes away the freedoms. Yes, whatever you are doing in front of a guard that gets you in trouble is bad, but its a free country and should stay that way. And first its guns, but once thats gone, what happens if say, Obama and congress takes away the freedom of religion. No guns to fight you, then maybe Obama also passes some crazy law that basically turns the US into a communist country? And they died to make America free and independent. To allow us to have our own laws. The founding fathers allowed guns to protect us from the government. No guns, a lot less freedom is more to come. Patriots died for nothing.

[Tali]

Remove guns from civilians+ add security guards with firearms at schools/malls/any other place an insane person may strike.

Thats literally disgusting having a guard check you out. They are having more at school and quite frankly, they are humans too, they might make a mistake, and even in the Connecticut shooting, the killer shot his way to a window.

Guns were put in the U.S. to protect freedoms. The founding fathers knew what a tyrant could do and with the armed people, you have a chance of rebellion. I'm fully for people, who are not criminals, or have some mental issue, to own guns. And should not be restricted to own guns. This is because people died to gain our freedom, and later to protect it to keep us safe, so what, just throw away those lives and have them die for nothing once we throw away our freedoms? Unarmed civilians will basically allow the government to steam roll us into whatever they want. No chance of a large, harmful rebellion. 

@Boberton you seem to have this air of supremacy over everyone. I find your comparison of cars to guns laughable. I don't think you understand: guns are designed to kill things.

True. Guns were made to kill things. But look at how many car crashes kill people. 32,367 died in car relating incidents in 2011! Surely we should ban cars if we are going to ban guns. WAY too many people die.

The difference is that cars are not designed to kill people, guns are.

As well as Cars make our daily lives a lot easier, and thus we accept the risks of cars. Firearms, however, do not make our daily lives easier.

[TheBoberton]

@TheBoberton How can you see if the AT4 has been used? Perhaps it was bought? In some states you can buy field artillery peices. Still why the need of so many weapons? And hunting rifles are bolt action usually.

Again no need for civilians to have guns at all. Unless hunting in which case they need to make  the hunting courses in the USA longer you can get a hunting license in some states after like 3 hours..

I know it's used because I actually read the news related to the weapon. And the fact that it's illegal to own loaded. And you can only legally own artillery of designs made before.. the 1890s, I believe.

And once again, need does not dictate what you can own. If it did so, we would all be sans quite a few items that we don't 'need'.

Having guards also provides safety. Or perhaps you view shooting people up in a school as something that should happen because of "freedom" NO guards should be there to prevent it. And the rest you wrote are you trolling?even if you have guns, how in the hell will you defend yourself from the US army? I say again The Patriots fought so you could become independent from being Great Britains puppets AND they succeded, therefor they did not die for nothing. They didnt fight for assault rifles to be legal.

There was a guard at Columbine, if you weren't aware. Yet he was unable to change what happened. (The shooting also occurred during the (Failed) 'Assault Weapons' Ban.)

And how would we defend against the army? The army, as far as I know, is made up of humans, who do not particularly enjoy shooting their neighbors, family, and friends.

And you are aware that cannons, the epitome of destruction during that era, that could do more damage than even a modern (Legally available) firearm, were perfectly legal, correct?

[Slick]

Firearms, however, do not make our daily lives easier.

Tell that to people who have saved their lives/other's lives with a firearm

[Tali]

Firearms, however, do not make our daily lives easier.

Tell that to people who have saved their lives/other's lives with a firearm

I think you are forgetting the severely bigger group of people who has lost their lives, or the lives of close relatives, due to firearms in the hands of the wrong people.

[Evanovic]

Some have posited that the problem lies with illegal guns and the fact that the US's neighbour, Mexico, is a socially unstable country. Conversely a lot of the guns that Mexican Drugs Cartels and Gangs use come from the US. This US Senate report reckons 60-90% of firearms used by Mexican criminals could be of US origin.
 
The fact is having an abundance of firearms within arms reach means seepage exists. The more guns you have around the more unsuitable hands guns will end up in. Other locations where illegal guns come from to the US and Mexico are Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is nearer to the rest of Europe than the US, but most of Europe has vastly reduced firearm-crime rates than North America. The problem lies within the US and this plexus of drugs and firearms channels between the US and Mexico.
 
The place to start would be through the de-glamourisation of guns. In the UK we've curbed significantly on smoking through censorship of advertising, branding and other promotion by cigarette companies in media. There is further legislation coming in that is going to restrict display of cigarettes in shops along with increased funding in education of health problems caused by cigarette consumption. Statistically it has worked very well. Similar approaches need to happen in the US. Institutions such as the NRA and fire-arm manufacturing companies need to be ostracised from promotional media and have stricter regulation the distribution and presentation of their firearms.
 
Even despite 'right to bear arms' that Americans may want to uphold, there is no reason why the arms industry should be left in control of free-market businessmen who's ultimate goal is profit-maximation. If there are to be firearms in each home to act as a 'deterant' American citizens then they should be provided with standardised, minimum-force, staple, bland, plain firearms, which come in brown bags without any shiney logos and famous brand-names on them, provided by government-sponsored companies only. Because nowhere does it say in the Second Amendment that idolisation of guns should necessarily be permitted and it's this fact that it's a free market, consumer-driven industry that's the problem.

[zac]

i beleive guns should be legal but there is really no need for military assault rifles..While australias laws are harsh , they do produce results, although people still get guns from elsewhere and they really arent that hard to make

[Viktor 90th]

I Was going to try to think of something intelligent to post here.(It didn't work)
the thing here in Scotland we have to control:

[Spearing]

^ someone who understands. I'm not alone

[William Trumper-Jones]

Just popping into this debate to add my opinion, I'm not American, so I don't have your point of view, so I'm writing from a European's perspective.

Something thats always struck my mind when these sort of debates; Why don't you illegalise assault weapons and automatics? Surely these are killers as we have seen quite recently at the Conneticut and Cinema shootings. What the hell is an American citizen going to do with an automatic weapon anyway? Shoot at alien space-invaders?

'Put security guards in schools, hospitals, etc' isn't that just going to make the new American population fear for their lives? or even 'Guns are for protection' If there was no guns in the first place there would be no need for protection, is that not true? Even the suggestion of Security guards searching people, is it not worrying that it has reached the stage where people are even considering this option? All of them are ridictulous.

I understand all this blah-blah about the constitutional rights and all that malarky, but whats more important, a right written down hundreds of years ago when having a weapon was necessary, or someones life? Most of the world surivives without insane assault rifle-wielding peasantry - why not the US? Maybe just allowing bolt-action rifles for instance, no one is stupid enough to run into a building and even attempt to kill anybody with a slow-reloading rifle, surely thats preserving life and preventing death, as well as fulfilling your constitutional right.

It's quite obvious the current Gun laws in the US are inadequate and severely flawed and really do need revising. Isn't the whole point of American's having guns is to preserve life? All I've seen is early death.

Meh, just adding my two cents. Not an American, don't bite my head off!

[Slick]

Why don't you illegalise assault weapons and automatics?

Fully automatic rifles are already illegal, and it's the fully auto feature that makes them an "assault weapon". If you remove the fully automatic feature from an assault rifle, it is now even less useful than a semi auto shotgun and as good as almost any other semi-auto rifle.

or even 'Guns are for protection' If there was no guns in the first place there would be no need for protection, is that not true?

Indeed it is, if only we could make all guns disappear, that'd be really nice, I agree. But here's the thing, there's approx. 300 million guns in circulation here, you can't just "remove" all guns and expect gun crime to still be as low as any other country with a ban on guns. So sure, it'd be amazing if we could press a button and remove all guns from the world, but that sadly isn't the case, and disarming law-abiding citizens who legally own weapons, makes them defenseless against the criminals who have illegally obtained firearms (a vast majority of violent gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns) isn't the answer. If you want a proof of this take a look at places in the US where guns have been restricted, such as Chicago, Cali, and NY. Violent crimes and crime in general have went up in those areas, while places WITH loose gun laws (Texas for example, crime rate has went down by 10% here in the past 10 years I think it was) are doing more or less the same when it comes to violent crimes and crime in general.

It's quite obvious the current Gun laws in the US are inadequate and severely flawed and really do need revising. Isn't the whole point of American's having guns is to preserve life? All I've seen is early death.

I agree they are seriously flawed, in areas where guns are restricted that is (AKA the places with most crime, as I've stated).

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin